Clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Toronto SPV bioprosthesis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: By providing a superior hemodynamic profile, the stentless valve design allows ventricular remodeling and may improve patient survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR). Compared with stent-mounted prostheses, implantation is more complex and requires a longer ischemic time; this may adversely affect surgical risk, especially if patients are elderly or require a concomitant procedure. The mid-term clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Toronto SPV bioprosthesis in a predominantly elderly patient group was analyzed. METHODS: A total of 123 patients (median age 72 years) underwent AVR with the Toronto SPV. Concomitant procedures (mainly coronary artery bypass grafting, CABG), were performed in 60 patients (49%). Clinical details were recorded, with 100% follow up (total 317 patient-years). Hemodynamic evaluation, by serial echocardiography, was performed at four and 18 months after implantation. RESULTS: The early mortality rate was low (0.8%). Mean (+/- SD) actuarial survival at 53 months was 78 +/- 5.9%, with most patients (91%) in NYHA classes I and II. Freedom from valve-related complications were: endocarditis 93.8 +/- 2.3%, thromboembolism 90.3 +/- 3.7% and bleeding 95.8 +/- 1.8%; there were no structural failures. The valve hemodynamic profile was excellent for all sizes: peak gradient 8.8 +/- 4.3 mmHg, effective orifice area 1.9 +/- 0.54 cm2 with significant improvement in left ventricular fractional shortening. CONCLUSION: In this patient population the Toronto SPV was a suitable choice. Advanced age, a requirement for concomitant procedures and increased ischemic times did not adversely affect surgical risk. AVR with the Toronto SPV provided an excellent hemodynamic profile, and improved both left ventricular function and NYHA functional class.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".